The criteria includes how teachers are evaluated and how many of the states’ school boards can be persuaded to join the plan. The first batch of winners, Delaware and Tennessee, came away with $100 million and $500 million, respectively. Many states have voiced their displeasure with the review process and might not participate in the next round of the program.

Although the program is a way for states to receive much-needed educational funding, this contest isn’t the best way to divide up the cash. Race to the Top is a contest for money based on which states can best formulate a plan to conform to the federal government’s wishes. But the federal government doesn’t necessarily know what’s best for children’s education, and asking states to change in exchange for money rather than for what might be in the best interest of students is not right. When it comes to deciding what works best for schools, states and local school boards should have the most influence — not the federal government.

In Michigan’s plan, the state ties teacher evaluations to student test scores. There is no perfect way to effectively evaluate teacher performance based on students. To benefit students, educational plans can’t cater to the government. The focus must be on how children can most effectively learn.

Instead of issuing proportionate amounts of the stimulus money and allowing the parties who know best to decide how to run schools, the federal government is playing a sort of puppet master, attempting to influence the states. If the federal government really knew how much the money means to some states — Michigan, in particular — it wouldn’t be sponsoring a dash for cash.

It is an individual state’s choice to participate in Race to the Top, but as many of the states need money for education, many are likely to continue applying. By the very nature of it being a contest, losers are going to be upset, and even those which win might be disappointed if they don’t receive as much money as they’d like. It would be nice to see feasible standards for every state. To expect a large state such as California to have the same percentage of school districts on board with a plan as Rhode Island is preposterous.

The government has money to spend on education, but with little knowledge of how to improve student performance relative to states and local school boards, Obama shouldn’t ask states to create plans based on his requests. The federal government needs to sit down and think of a comprehensive plan to disperse the money effectively while allowing the states and local school boards to decide how to educate the students.

Watching states throw children aside for money isn’t an action with which anyone should become comfortable.